IMHO the title “The Cause” is a superb expression of the essence of Climategate 2.0. It’s even better than “Climategate”, as it avoids the word “climate”, which doesn’t even seem to be The Team’s highest priority.

This is o/t, but have you seen this?http://mediamatters.org/research/201111300010
It’s an organization that distorts what people it doesn’t agree with believe, to make them look more extreme than they are, but this piece looks superficially like a fair analysis of media quoting the Climategate II emails out of context.

Why would we want to gather context from an organization that you admit “distorts what people it doesn’t agree with believe, to make them look more extreme than they are”, when we can just read the emails ourselves?

Wouldn’t the same organization attempt to play down extremism from organizations it does agree with?

Perused your link for fun. I found it amusing that they took other portions of the emails out of context then gave you a supposed context to make the two fit to together. Knowing most readers won’t bother to actually read the emails. Read the whole emails to get the real context.

The part about settling a feud. The reason for the feud was that one scientist dared question one of the teams data. So, no the quote was not out of context. Because the scientist did say the “truth” was not as important and he was talking about scientific work not opinions.

Then for some quotes instead of placing things in context with the emails they have to qoute different sources. Look it’s ok that Phil wanted to bias the graphics, because in the final report it didn’t make it. That’s kinda of like saying “Bob wasn’t able to break into the safe so it wasn’t a crime.”

There’s actually enough material in the real story to make a pretty good B movie thriller — plenty of opportunities for corruption and intrigue with government, science, media, and business interests all vying and competing for money and power. Each sphere has it’s own good and bad guys, too: pro- and anti- CAGW politicians; fiercely debating academics; battle of the blogs; coal companies vs. wind farmers. The hard thing for a screenwriter would be to boil it down to essentials and still keep the tension. Throw in ironic scenes (a surprise Gore-effect snow squall at the Academy Awards, a HARRY_READ_ME dialog) and the mystery of the whistle-blower (including a humorous side story about the inept search for him) and you’ve got a film. And squeeze in the bungled “investigations” if you can.

Of course, some artistic license will have to be taken. Make Steve Mc a bit younger with a love interest, but keep the squash-playing in as a nice detail.

IMDB lists only three minor films with “The Cause” for a title so that looks available.

“The very first rule of Scooby-Doo, the single premise that sits at the heart of their adventures, is that the world is full of grown-ups who lie to kids, and that it’s up to those kids to figure out what those lies are and call them on it, even if there are other adults who believe those lies with every fiber of their being. And the way that you win isn’t through supernatural powers, or even through fighting. The way that you win is by doing the most dangerous thing that any person being lied to by someone in power can do: You think.”

“The bad guys in Scooby-Doo prey on superstition, because that’s the one thing that an otherwise rational person doesn’t really think through. It’s based on belief, not evidence, which is a crucial element for the show. If, for example, someone knocks on your door and claims to be a police officer, you’re going to want to see a badge because that’s the tangible evidence that you’ve come to expect to prove their claim. If, however, you hold the belief that the old run-down theater has a phantom in the basement, then the existence of that phantom himself — or at least a reasonably convincing costume — is all the evidence that you need to believe that you were right all along. The bad guys are just reinforcing a belief that the other characters already have, and that they don’t need any evidence before because it’s based in superstition, not reason.”

Is it confirmed that “FOIA” as agent of the CG2 emails is in fact the same person (or agency) as “RC” who alerted us that “a miracle has occured” for CG1?

Just thinking about the East Anglia police, who in support of the CRU “hack” investigation, obtained for G. Boulton — among others — a £8,910 thumb drive or memory stick purported to contain an archive of CRU emails sufficient to provide the lacking context of the CG1 extract.

I’m thinking once several such sticks were released out in the wild, the range of possibilities for leakers opens up drastically. What if a cop who began with no knowledge or interest in the climate problem, after reviewing the archives in this thumb drive over two years, found himself in agreement with the original “hacker”?

What if one of the tame scientists in the investigation team who does worry about the climate, nevertheless is more worried about the unfair play exhibited by his competitors?

What if a media mogul’s dirty tricks specialist gets hold of the stuff from an inside source and thinks he’s found a great way to sell papers?

What if the team making the copies for the stick kept copies of work in progress, just because — and then upgraded their systems letting an old hard drive be sold for salvage?

In short, is there any particular reason to suspect one lone hacker, acting in isolation again, or are we perhaps dealing with “the man with the umbrella on the shady knoll” at this point?

pouncer: It has always seemed more likely to me that the source was an inside leaker rather than an external hacker. No way to prove this of course, but both releases so far demonstrate familiarity with the players.